Percent Truth

[Samantha Rinne]

I wonder if people can rate religions by the percent truth.

As in, 0% there is no accident spiritual truth, and the founder made it up for various reasons.

I want everyone to simply rate by percent each religion, as many as you know. And remember, the less charitable you are to other religions, the more this reflects on yours.

Taoism: 100% (Reality is divided into light and darkness, their belief in proper government minimal rule and not favoring the "worthy" and their belief in simple worship; plus it's very adaptable to other religion)
Christianity: 95% (I was raised Christian, so yea. The only point I really can't abide is "nobody comes to God but through me, if it's used to mean only Christianity is right." To me, this refers not to the person of Jesus but to the grace of Jesus and the relationship with God)
Buddhism: 80% (I appreciate a great deal of what the Buddha says, including the Six Paths theology. I also believe that reality is largely illusory and perception shapes it. But I'm not keen on rebirth being a complete destruction of the person as I believe in immortal soul, and I don't like the Buddhist emphasis on detachment as salvation)
Judaism: 70% (It provides a good set of laws and rules to live by. But the Law is precisely the problem, and when they start to badmouth Jesus, they lose a few points)
Shintoism: 65% (I believe in a single God, so I just mainly accept its animism and pantheism)
Zoroastrianism: 60% (I don't believe in two opposing forces, I see Satan as only an angel, so this is a no here. But they seem pretty cool otherwise with their fire temples, and I approve of their dietary laws)
Jainism: 50% (Totally down with treating animals with respect. We have an Indian family as friends who are Jains. But it starts getting weird when vegetable-derived cheese is okay for them, and the harder core ones sometimes abuse themselves in order not to harm other life)
Bahai: 40% (I'm not keen on how Bahai tries to be a universalized religion, it feels toomuch trying too hard)
Islam: 20% (Unfortunately, that 20% is probably plagiarized from other religions, and they have the gall to say alot of terrible things about other faiths)
Mormonism: 0% (The guy at one point was asked to prove his faith was divine inspiration by taking away his texts, they didn't match up! And there's no real proof of Jesus visiting Utah)
Sikhism: ??? (Don't really know enough about it)

 

[Duke_Leto]

So "percent truth" means "a rough estimation of how much I agree with"?

The point of discussions here is that no one can claim to know the truth. You're just asking people to state how much they agree with given religions.

the less charitable you are to other religions, the more this reflects on yours.

?? How so? If I do somehow know the truth, I know the truth. If I had incontrovertible proof that everyone else got it wrong, and God was in fact a yellow racoon that lives on Mars, who made humans to suffer for its amusement, it doesn't reflect on the validity of my beliefs to say that everyone did, in fact, get it wrong.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wonder if people can rate religions by the percent truth.

As in, 0% there is no accident spiritual truth, and the founder made it up for various reasons.

I want everyone to simply rate by percent each religion, as many as you know. And remember, the less charitable you are to other religions, the more this reflects on yours.

Taoism: 100% (Reality is divided into light and darkness, their belief in proper government minimal rule and not favoring the "worthy" and their belief in simple worship; plus it's very adaptable to other religion)
Christianity: 95% (I was raised Christian, so yea. The only point I really can't abide is "nobody comes to God but through me, if it's used to mean only Christianity is right." To me, this refers not to the person of Jesus but to the grace of Jesus and the relationship with God)
Buddhism: 80% (I appreciate a great deal of what the Buddha says, including the Six Paths theology. I also believe that reality is largely illusory and perception shapes it. But I'm not keen on rebirth being a complete destruction of the person as I believe in immortal soul, and I don't like the Buddhist emphasis on detachment as salvation)
Judaism: 70% (It provides a good set of laws and rules to live by. But the Law is precisely the problem, and when they start to badmouth Jesus, they lose a few points)
Shintoism: 65% (I believe in a single God, so I just mainly accept its animism and pantheism)
Zoroastrianism: 60% (I don't believe in two opposing forces, I see Satan as only an angel, so this is a no here. But they seem pretty cool otherwise with their fire temples, and I approve of their dietary laws)
Jainism: 50% (Totally down with treating animals with respect. We have an Indian family as friends who are Jains. But it starts getting weird when vegetable-derived cheese is okay for them, and the harder core ones sometimes abuse themselves in order not to harm other life)
Bahai: 40% (I'm not keen on how Bahai tries to be a universalized religion, it feels toomuch trying too hard)
Islam: 20% (Unfortunately, that 20% is probably plagiarized from other religions, and they have the gall to say alot of terrible things about other faiths)
Mormonism: 0% (The guy at one point was asked to prove his faith was divine inspiration by taking away his texts, they didn't match up! And there's no real proof of Jesus visiting Utah)
Sikhism: ??? (Don't really know enough about it)

It strikes me more of an evaluation based on personal preferences and perceptions and assigned a percent rating. Like having a personalized Metacritic score.

 

[Augustus]

Christianity: 95% (I was raised Christian, so yea. The only point I really can't abide is "nobody comes to God but through me, if it's used to mean only Christianity is right." To me, this refers not to the person of Jesus but to the grace of Jesus and the relationship with God)
...
Islam: 20% (Unfortunately, that 20% is probably plagiarized from other religions, and they have the gall to say alot of terrible things about other faiths)

Ignoring the fact that it's a bit silly to think you can "plagiarise" longstanding cultural traditions, why is Islam "plagiarised" but Christianity not?

 

[stvdv]

I wonder if people can rate religions by the percent truth.

As in, 0% there is no accident spiritual truth, and the founder made it up for various reasons.

You are a writer I see. Gathering some stats?

Well, I believe no religion has the Full Truth
All Religions are pathways to the Full Truth

I believe the quest for Truth is an individual quest. No need for Religion, but Religion can be motivating. So I do not identify myself with any religion, though I love many Teachings from Hinduism, Buddhism. Zoroaster I don't know, but seeing His picture I just love Him.

1 major flaw I see in Relgions is when they claim "my way is the highway"

This is called spiritual ego by the wise, and this is said to be the biggest obstacle in Spiritual life.

So all religions with this arrogant view, I would grant 0%. It's Paramount to get this arrogance removed first, because it's the cause of most of the pain

The Yoga Vasista starts with claiming, that it's way is not the only way, even explicitly telling you can choose any path you like, that is dealing with Self Knowledge, to reach your Goal (Self Realization).

I have not come across any other Scriptures claiming this explicitly.

I do believe the prophets were sincere

And many relative truths exist IMO

Absolute Truth is beyond Religion IMO

So asking percentage of Truth I give all 0%

 

[Howard Is]

Taoism: 100% (Reality is divided into light and darkness, their belief in proper government minimal rule and not favoring the "worthy" and their belief in simple worship; plus it's very adaptable to other religion)

And at last, with the legalizing of cannabis, you can follow the example of the progenitors of Taoism.

Beginning around the 4th century, Taoist texts mentioned using cannabis in censers. Needham cited the (ca. 570 AD) Taoist encyclopedia Wushang Biyao 無上秘要 ("Supreme Secret Essentials") that cannabis was added into ritual incense-burners, and suggested the ancient Taoists experimented systematically with "hallucinogenic smokes".[17] The Yuanshi shangzhen zhongxian ji元始上真眾仙記 ("Records of the Assemblies of the Perfected Immortals"), which is attributed to Ge Hong (283-343), says:

For those who begin practicing the Tao it is not necessary to go into the mountains. … Some with purifying incense and sprinkling and sweeping are also able to call down the Perfected Immortals. The followers of the Lady Wei and of Hsu are of this kind.[18]
Lady Wei Huacun 魏華存 (252-334) and Xu Mi 許謐 (303-376) founded the Taoist Shangqing School. The Shangqing scriptures were supposedly dictated to Yang Xi (330-c. 386) in nightly revelations from immortals, and Needham proposed Yang was "aided almost certainly by cannabis". The Mingyi bielu 名醫別錄 ("Supplementary Records of Famous Physicians"), written by the Taoist pharmacologist Tao Hongjing (456-536), who also wrote the first commentaries to the Shangqing canon, says, "Hemp-seeds (麻勃) are very little used in medicine, but the magician-technicians (shujia 術家) say that if one consumes them with ginseng it will give one preternatural knowledge of events in the future."[19][20] A 6th-century AD Taoist medical work, the Wuzangjing 五臟經 ("Five Viscera Classic") says, "If you wish to command demonic apparitions to present themselves you should constantly eat the inflorescences of the hemp plant."[21]

Joseph Needham connected myths about Magu, "the Hemp Damsel", with early Daoist religious usages of cannabis, pointing out that Magu was goddess of Shandong's sacred Mount Tai, where cannabis "was supposed to be gathered on the seventh day of the seventh month, a day of seance banquets in the Taoist communities."[22]

- Cannabis in China | Wikiwand

 

[PureX]

I think your characterization of taoism is a bit off, but that's to be expected. It's a very 'pliable' concept.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormonism: 0% (The guy at one point was asked to prove his faith was divine inspiration by taking away his texts, they didn't match up! And there's no real proof of Jesus visiting Utah)

Are you genuinely this clueless about Mormonism? Your first statement is blatantly false and your second one is positively laughable. Seriously, if you're going to try to discredit Mormonism, you ought to at least start by getting your facts straight. Otherwise, you just appear to be very, very ignorant.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

So "percent truth" means "a rough estimation of how much I agree with"?

The point of discussions here is that no one can claim to know the truth. You're just asking people to state how much they agree with given religions.



?? How so? If I do somehow know the truth, I know the truth. If I had incontrovertible proof that everyone else got it wrong, and God was in fact a yellow racoon that lives on Mars, who made humans to suffer for its amusement, it doesn't reflect on the validity of my beliefs to say that everyone did, in fact, get it wrong.

Urgh, I hate ppl like you. Any other forum, they would just play along.

It's the percent you personally agree with any particular religions. I'm not assigning you the difficult task of determining absolute truth. I want to know how much you just think they have a point.

Why does nobody in this forum know how to cooperate with a scenario or do anything other than argue with the OP?!? And yes, I know someone 's gonna say "I was just asking, no need to be rude!" But this is like the third or fourth such thing I've done! The second was like an island with Neanderthals that you were trying to convert. " Why should we convert them? " they all asked. Because you're roleplaying. Because the topic asked you to do something and instead you just ask questions or second-guess people's decisions.

Last poster, I have the right to feel what I feel about Mormonism. The guy literally called his language converted hieroglyphics or something. When the Rosetta Stone came out and ppl were starting to translate, the Mormons made the mistake of trying to tell everyone they could do it. So yeahhhh, no.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Ignoring the fact that it's a bit silly to think you can "plagiarise" longstanding cultural traditions, why is Islam "plagiarised" but Christianity not?

For the same reason that I think 0% for Mormonism. Because I participated in the exercise and made a percentage notation. Nobody so far has done the same.

 

[Katzpur]

For the same reason that I think 0% for Mormonism. Because I participated in the exercise and made a percentage notation. Nobody so far has done the same.

What good is participation in the exercise if you make a judgment call based on flawed information?

 

[Howard Is]

I participated in the exercise and made a percentage notation. Nobody so far has done the same.

You’re right. I didn’t give Taoism a score.

Based on the fact that it’s origins involve the ritual use of cannabis to receive insight, and the philosophy reflects that well, I give it four and a half stars.

I’d like to give it a full five star rating, but the failure to disclose the details of the cannabis use in the primary texts annoyed me.

 

[Audie]

I wonder if people can rate religions by the percent truth.

As in, 0% there is no accident spiritual truth, and the founder made it up for various reasons.

I want everyone to simply rate by percent each religion, as many as you know. And remember, the less charitable you are to other religions, the more this reflects on yours.

Taoism: 100% (Reality is divided into light and darkness, their belief in proper government minimal rule and not favoring the "worthy" and their belief in simple worship; plus it's very adaptable to other religion)
Christianity: 95% (I was raised Christian, so yea. The only point I really can't abide is "nobody comes to God but through me, if it's used to mean only Christianity is right." To me, this refers not to the person of Jesus but to the grace of Jesus and the relationship with God)
Buddhism: 80% (I appreciate a great deal of what the Buddha says, including the Six Paths theology. I also believe that reality is largely illusory and perception shapes it. But I'm not keen on rebirth being a complete destruction of the person as I believe in immortal soul, and I don't like the Buddhist emphasis on detachment as salvation)
Judaism: 70% (It provides a good set of laws and rules to live by. But the Law is precisely the problem, and when they start to badmouth Jesus, they lose a few points)
Shintoism: 65% (I believe in a single God, so I just mainly accept its animism and pantheism)
Zoroastrianism: 60% (I don't believe in two opposing forces, I see Satan as only an angel, so this is a no here. But they seem pretty cool otherwise with their fire temples, and I approve of their dietary laws)
Jainism: 50% (Totally down with treating animals with respect. We have an Indian family as friends who are Jains. But it starts getting weird when vegetable-derived cheese is okay for them, and the harder core ones sometimes abuse themselves in order not to harm other life)
Bahai: 40% (I'm not keen on how Bahai tries to be a universalized religion, it feels toomuch trying too hard)
Islam: 20% (Unfortunately, that 20% is probably plagiarized from other religions, and they have the gall to say alot of terrible things about other faiths)
Mormonism: 0% (The guy at one point was asked to prove his faith was divine inspiration by taking away his texts, they didn't match up! And there's no real proof of Jesus visiting Utah)
Sikhism: ??? (Don't really know enough about it)

On a related matter, I have tried a time or two
to get a fundy to recognize that the bible has
approximations here and there.

Like "675,000 sheep" were taken.
or especially-
" a line 30 cubits long"

No way that one could possibly measure a line
to within a trillionth of a cubit.

so it had to be 29.9..... or a bit over 30.

So there is some percent of error

My q is-how much error can perfect truth have
built into it and still be perfect?
1%?
47%?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

What good is participation in the exercise if you make a judgment call based on flawed information?

Participation is the only thing that matters, because we are talking about subjective (opinion-based) truth level. In other words, if I think all Scientologists are actually space aliens, I'm clear to go for that. Again, we are not talking about objective truth. Therefore, my opinion can be flawed as anything, but it doesn't change the fact that I shared my opinion, and you still have yet to even try.

I'm afraid that I wasn't aware of Taoism's use of cannabis. It wasn't mentioned in the Tao te Ching, Chuang Tzu, or I Ching. But you go ahead, give it 10/10.

The purpose of religion is to reconnect. To build a relationship with the supernatural and the natural. When you don't have a stake at all, when you don't even participate, we might as well not even do this. Not this thread, not even this forum. No point really, if people aren't engaged.
It's like getting on a dating site, and talking to zero people and accepting no dates, just making sure your own stuff looks nice. Great it's perfect, only if you don't actually get involved there is no point. Actually voting in polls, participating when ppl give you a scenario, exercise (even a stupid one like this), or theoretical. Not asking "why?" like a six-year-old child.

 

[Katzpur]

Participation is the only thing that matters, because we are talking about subjective (opinion-based) truth level. In other words, if I think all Scientologists are actually space aliens, I'm clear to go for that. Again, we are not talking about objective truth.

I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me. If I'm going to be critical of another religion, I believe it's my responsibility to actually know what that religion teaches instead of just making something up and then ridiculing it. Case in point:

Sikhism: ??? (Don't really know enough about it)

So why not just pick the Sikh turban, for instance, and invent some crazy history or doctrines surrounding it? Then criticize this fabricated information and judge it as 0% true.